Talk:The Muppets Studio
Redirect? Now that Muppets Studio has a popular YouTube channel and Twitter feed, people are starting to search for that name. In the last couple days, "muppets studio" was the #9 search term that got people to click to us. Unfortunately, when they get here, the page that they get isn't that interesting -- it's similar to what we had for "the Muppets" a while back. It's nice to have the company history, but the people who are looking for "muppets studio" are probably looking for our main page. What do you guys think about moving the interesting parts of this page to the main page, and redirecting "Muppets Studio" there? -- Danny (talk) 21:39, November 26, 2009 (UTC) :I can see the benefits of redirecting for SEO purposes. Where should we house the article about the company? —Scott (talk) 20:57, November 28, 2009 (UTC) ::We could make it a section of The Walt Disney Company... -- Danny (talk) 21:24, November 28, 2009 (UTC) :::That could work. That page probably needs an overhaul with all the references anyway. On the other hand, does a redirect matter? Muppets Studios has been out there as a brand identifier for the Muppets for years. People only care recently due to the name of the YouTube channel, and then they won't care again. Would it be best to keep a soft redirect gallery at the top of the page the way we do now? —Scott (talk) 21:43, November 28, 2009 (UTC) ::::While we're talking about redirects, can we move this page to "Muppet Studios", which is what the new logos are saying? -- Ken (talk) 23:11, November 28, 2009 (UTC) :::::Frankly, the fact that they seem to be inconsistent as to what to call it and change their mind periodically is all the more reason to merge/redirect. So if we're merging the page, it won't matter. You Tube's logo and channel name used "The Muppet Studio," so just redirect both if that's the consensus. I have no strong feelings on what's handled there, but I agree with making the useful text a subsection of the Disney article. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 23:27, November 28, 2009 (UTC) ::::::I think that the new YouTube channel and Twitter stream are the beginning of a branding push for Muppet Studios (even if they can't decide what they're actually called). We'll see more stuff branded "Muppet Studios" in the future, so I'd expect that people will be looking for that name. I think the redirect will be good for SEO as we go along. -- Danny (talk) 00:05, November 29, 2009 (UTC) ::::::::Okay, the redirect is done... I moved the section to The Walt Disney Company, redirected the Muppet Holding Company links there, and moved the main Muppets Studio redirects to point to the main page. And now we see what happens! -- Danny (talk) 18:20, November 30, 2009 (UTC) logo parking File:MuppetStudiosArtworkLogo.jpg File:Club Mayhem.jpg File:Muppetstudioscommissary.jpg File:Muppetstudiosrecords.jpg Bear in the Big Blue House The subsidary was formed in 2004 after Disney acquire the Muppets from The Jim Henson Company. Bear in the Big Blue House was bought as part of the same deal, but is Bear a part of the Muppets Studio? I know that not much has been done with Bear since the buy-out, but does that property fall under the scope of The Muppets Studio's managment? Was Breakfast with Bear initiated and/or produced by the leadership of The Muppet Holding Company, LLC? Or is Bear managed by another section of the Disney empire? -- Brad D. (talk) 02:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC) :There's no real way to answer this precisely because no new Bear stuff has surfaced, but it's more likely just there the same way Dinosaurs is, not really being managed at all but any merchandise that may surface is just put out by Disney. Anything on record re Breakfast with Bear emphasizes the Jim Henson Company directly producing, no holding company or whatever entering into the matter. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 18:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC) ::Yeah, I understand since nothing has really been done it's hard to figure out by looking at credits or merchandice. But if anyone has an insider contact it may be a questions to ask: "Do you also have control over the management of the Bear property too, or is that under Playhouse Disney or some other group's control?" -- Brad D. (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC) :::I don't think anyone does and there's nothing to indicate it as very likely. When/if anything else surfaces, we might know, but it seems unlikely (even at the time and so on, Disney tended to downplay any Muppet connection and avoid using it except when unavoidable, as in the credits for the performers and workshop) and falling more into the Dinosaurs camp seems proabble. In any event, it doesn't seem to be an answerable question right now. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 23:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC) ::::Anybody got a post-2004 Bear DVD? It should say in the copyright section there. I know that the post-2004 DVDs say "Disney's Bear in the Big Blue House" on the front cover. Do the credits refer to the characters being trademarks of "The Muppets Holding Company" or The Walt Disney Company? And I beleive that there were episode sof Bear in the Big Blue House produced after the sale, if anybody wants to check the credits. --Minor muppetz 01:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC) :::::There were Bear episodes that aired after the sale, but they were produced years earlier (and just, for some reason, kept in the vault). There are some people around here that seem to have contacts with Muppet Studios folks (the discussion below when we were debating "Holding Co." versus "Studios" was settled by insider information). So I don't think it's an unanswerable question. :::::I know not much as been done with Bear; not much has been done with Muppet Babies and a lot of what Disney purchased from Henson in '04 either. But it would be interesting to know if Bear is under Muppet Studios' control (and just isn't bening focused on by that group) or if the lack of Bear is due to another branch of the Disney empire not being interested or taking the inititive with the brand. It's not the same as Dinosaurs which has always been a part of Disney's control (but is still part-Henson); the Bear characters are Muppets (although not of the Muppet Show family) and they were brought into the Disney family at the same time as the Muppets (with Henson having some overseeing for the first years...and thus the original holding company for the Muppets). So it is likely that Lylle Breier and the staff of the Muppet Studio also have control over Bear (but, like Muppet Babies, haven't really focused on it yet). -- Brad D. (talk) 01:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC) ::::I think a lot was actually done with Bear back when Disney purchased the rights. I could be wrogn, but I'm pretty sure that a lot was done with the franchise, commercial-wise. --Minor muppetz 01:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC) :::::Scott heard from Debbie McClellan, but that doesn't mean she's a contact (especially since sometimes things filter in via Toughpigs or so on, or did in the past), but feel free to ask him on his talk page. That seems like the only way this could be an answerable question (and I meant Dinosaurs in terms of handling onwership, but I could as easily have mentioned the period when Disney owned several DiC properties; not everything is turned over to a specific division or holding company). -- Andrew Leal (talk) 03:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC) ::::::There are a couple of emails out; I'll update here when I hear something. —Scott (talk) 01:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC) :::::::I just heard from Debbie McLellan, and she said that Bear falls under the Muppets Studio umbrella. — Joe (talk) 18:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC) name, again I've just been informed that the legal name has indeed changed from Muppets Holding Company, LLC to The Muppets Studio, LLC. This comes from Debbie McClellan who is the Director of Creative Affairs for The Muppets Studio. Additional support for the change can be seen on the packaging for The Muppet Show: Season Three and Sesame Street's Season 39 credits. The first episode of the season lists the following in the credits: "MuppetsTM is a trademark of Muppets Holding Company, LLC". However, Episode 4173 (featuring Kermit in "Everybody Be Yo'Self") is credited for Kermit's appearance and the use of the term "Muppet" to The Muppets Studio, LLC. I'm going to go ahead and move the page. —Scott (talk) 20:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC) :Yeah, that makes sense. While I had that Studio System trial, their records showed that the "Holding Company" was contracted for a three year development period. Now that period has passed and the original language is no longer applicable, and besides they're more actively finding ways to use the Muppets and producing new stuff. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 20:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC) page move Why was this moved? The Muppets Studio has been used on Muppets.com since the Disney version launched. — Scott (talk) 03:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC) :A Red and Green Christmas liner notes, disc and case all say: : :The term "Holding Co." isn't used at all in the legal jargon and "The Muppets Studio, LLC." (the LLC and copyright/trademark attributions makes it seem like a legal title not just a nick-name) is used several times. "The Muppets Studio, LLC" title was also used on the later episodes of From the Balcony. Many of the earlier Disney things -- Muppets.com (which hasn't been updated in forever), The Muppet Show Season 1 DVD, The Muppets' Wizard of Oz, the earlier episodes of From the Balcony... -- all used "Holding Co". But it looks like they've changed it from the more awkward and off-putting "Holding Co" to the more friendly "Studio" title. I e-mailed Disney customer relations asking about the change and they gave me a canned response saying they couldn't answer these kinds of questions via e-mail and I should consider writing a letter and mailing it to the provided address. -- Brad D. (talk) 04:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC) ::Huh. Well, what do you know? However, I think we should leave it for now until we can confirm the name change for sure. — Scott (talk) 06:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC) :::Fair enough, until some more solid information comes along we can leave it under Muppet Holding Co...I'll add a note to the article about the "Studio" thing, and keep my eye out for more information. -- Brad D. (talk) 06:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC) ::::That's a good idea. If you would post the snail mail address you received in the aforementioned email reply, I'd be happy to send a letter in the hopes of acquiring a formal confirmation. — Scott (talk) 06:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC) :::::Just for the record, though it wasn't put out by Disney, the legal disclaimers on Old School Volume 1 specify Muppets Holding Company. They could just be behind, but I thought I'd point it out, as another reason formal confirmation would be useful. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 14:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC) Here's Disney's responce: :Unfortunately, we are unable to handle these type of request through e-mail requests. You may wish to send your inquiry to our main office at: ::The Walt Disney Company ::500 South Buena Vista Street ::Burbank, CA 91521 I don't know if they'll actual be able to answer and respond to any questions via snail mail or how long it would take, but feel free to ask. -- Brad D. (talk) 17:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC) ::I believe that I recently found a post at Muppet Central that mentioned the reason for the title change from The Muppets Holding Company to Muppet Studios, but I forget the reason. I think it had something to do with The Muppets Holding Company sounding too formal. --Minor muppetz 20:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)